pair_ledger_solana

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context: caching of the device address, derivation path details, and actionable error messages on failure. It also explains preconditions (USB, unlocked, Solana app) that are not covered by annotations, providing a clearer picture of tool behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is about four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and uses structured 'REQUIREMENTS:' for clarity. It includes necessary technical details (e.g., derivation path, library name) without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy with the schema is acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description covers preconditions, usage pattern, and error conditions, but lacks explicit mention of the success return value. It implies caching occurs but does not state what the tool returns on success (e.g., confirmation or address). This leaves a small gap in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description for accountIndex. The description reiterates the default and ability to call multiple times, which is already present in the schema. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool pairs a directly-connected Ledger device for Solana signing, specifying the verb 'pair' and resource 'Ledger device for Solana' while distinguishing it from sibling tools for other chains (e.g., pair_ledger_btc, pair_ledger_tron) by mentioning Solana specifically.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides explicit requirements (USB connection, device unlocked, Solana app open) and usage context (call before prepare_solana_* or send_transaction, call multiple times for additional accounts). It implicitly contrasts with WalletConnect and mentions same USB path as TRON, but does not explicitly name alternatives for other chains; however, the sibling tool names and chain-specific focus make the use case clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.